Nebraska Lawmakers Pass Abortion Ultrasound Law - Good News?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LittleSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LittleSoldier

Guest
In the constant war on abortion sometimes a few battles are won. In Nebraska a battle has been won. Well, at least for now. It’s not a huge victory but it may save some lives. Here’s hoping that the Supreme Court, no friend of the unborn at risk, leaves this law on the books.

"Nebraska will soon require those performing abortions to display ultrasound images of fetuses in a way that the women can easily view them.

"The bill also would require the state to compile a list of clinics that offer free ultrasounds to women.

"Nebraska will become the 14th state to require that abortion providers offer patients chances to see ultrasound images. The bill will take effect Aug. 29.

"Mary Spaulding Balch with the National Right to Life Committee said Nebraska’s proposed law is worded more strongly than that of most other states with similar measures. She says Nebraska’s law requires the ultrasound image to be displayed instead of just requiring that the woman be asked if she wants to see the image, as the other states do.

“We think it’s an important distinction, because we feel that when women are in a crisis – such as trying to decide whether or not they will have an abortion or not have the abortion – they’re probably just thinking that they don’t want to be pregnant, and they’re not really asking too many questions,” she said.

But Bobbie Kierstead, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs (Iowa), said she doesn’t believe the bill will change her organization’s longtime practice of offering women the choice of whether to view an ultrasound.

“It should be their choice,” Kierstead said.

"Planned Parenthood had objected to this measure as an improper intrusion into the practice of medicine.

“This is basically telling doctors what information and what care is best for their patients,” Kierstead said."

The full story can be read using the following link:

foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/nebraska-lawmakers-pass-abortion-ultrasound/
 
What’s the point of this legislation?

What is achieved by showing a pregnant woman an ultrasound?

Is guilt and shame a moral method of pushing ideology?
 
It saves lives, but unfortunately, this law can be ignored.
 
What’s the point of this legislation?

What is achieved by showing a pregnant woman an ultrasound?

Is guilt and shame a moral method of pushing ideology?
What guilt and shame is there if it is just a lump of tissue? It would be no different than the doctor showing the xray of a tumor before he removes it.

And it one is a proponent of ‘choice’ then it they should agree with giving the patient all the relevant information before they make their decision, correct?
 
What guilt and shame is there if it is just a lump of tissue? It would be no different than the doctor showing the xray of a tumor before he removes it.
Beats me. :confused: Sounds like a waste of state time and money to work on such legislation. I think this kind of wastefulness should easily be struck down by people who are for cutting unnecessary spending and increasing government efficiency.
And it one is a proponent of ‘choice’ then it they should agree with giving the patient all the relevant information before they make their decision, correct?
Sure, why not. Why is this picture relevant to make a decision? I don’t need to see my brain tumor to know I need to have it removed. Why is this different?
 
Because a baby is not a brain tumor. Maybe you need a CAT scan if you can’t tell the difference.

Every woman who sees her baby and chooses not to abort will tell other women, “They told me it was a blob of tissue but they lied - he was a baby and I could see his heart beating,” etc. Word will spread that PP LIES and that they don’t want to help you, they just want to kill your baby and take your money.

Anything we can do to give women true choice, including seeing their babies, will undermine abortion.
 
It saves lives, but unfortunately, this law can be ignored.
We have to do what we can. Every bit of legislation that gets passed is one more brick torn out of the wall of Roe v. Wade. See my previous post for how these bills can help us destroy PP’s credibility with women.
 
Because a baby is not a brain tumor. Maybe you need a CAT scan if you can’t tell the difference.
I was using Brendan’s example. Take it up with him if you have a problem with a lump of biomass being a lump of biomass.
Every woman who sees her baby and chooses not to abort will tell other women, “They told me it was a blob of tissue but they lied - he was a baby and I could see his heart beating,” etc. Word will spread that PP LIES and that they don’t want to help you, they just want to kill your baby and take your money.
Except even in this example PP isn’t lying, the unborn is still a lump of biomass. If all it takes is a heartbeat to be human then many things are human.
Anything we can do to give women true choice, including seeing their babies, will undermine abortion.
Looking at an ultrasound does not give true choice and is waste of time and money.
 
I was using Brendan’s example. Take it up with him if you have a problem with a lump of biomass being a lump of biomass.

Except even in this example PP isn’t lying, the unborn is still a lump of biomass.** If all it takes is a heartbeat to be human then many things are human.**

Looking at an ultrasound does not give true choice and is waste of time and money.
But that heartbeat is within the womb of a woman, therefore, it is a baby.
 
But that heartbeat is within the womb of a woman, therefore, it is a baby.
Do you think this escapes the mother? What pregnant woman have you met doesn’t understand that there’s an early form of human life growing in them?
 
It saves lives, but unfortunately, this law can be ignored.
I doubt it will save many lives… most women are given the option and say they don’t want to see if they are seeking an abortion.
and unless you know what you are looking at a very early ultrasound doesn’t really look a human baby-
over 60 percent are before 9 weeks… right around the 9-10 week you start to see a human form but only from a good angle w an internal ultrasound you wont see very much at all if you do an ultrasound that is not internal (vaginal)
another 20 some percent are done between week 9 and 10 -
most abortions done later than that are for medical reasons - which would just be greatly traumatic for the mother- that makes me sad -

I think there should be a law that requires you to ask if she wants to see the ultrasound imagine -
But this is going a little too far I think
 
Because a baby is not a brain tumor. Maybe you need a CAT scan if you can’t tell the difference.

Every woman who sees her baby and chooses not to abort will tell other women, “They told me it was a blob of tissue but they lied - he was a baby and I could see his heart beating,” etc. Word will spread that PP LIES and that they don’t want to help you, they just want to kill your baby and take your money.

Anything we can do to give women true choice, including seeing their babies, will undermine abortion.
What is quite ironic is I know someone who actually did have a tumor. The process took 3 months from suspician to actual surgery. Doctors wanted to makes sure it was cancer, make sure that surgery was the best option. The doctors were very conservative going into the surgery, because of a slight risk to his vocal cords.

But,a woman can take a pregnancy test today, and on monday can “choose” to “terminate”.
 
We have to do what we can. Every bit of legislation that gets passed is one more brick torn out of the wall of Roe v. Wade. See my previous post for how these bills can help us destroy PP’s credibility with women.
And that’s the good news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top